>
Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Home Members List Top Posters Arcade Casino Toolbar
Go Back   Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards > The Razor > Politics and Religion Forum
Mark Forums Read rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read
Register All Albums FAQDonate Calendar

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-23-2019, 09:37 AM   #346
OJ's Glove
Registered User
 
OJ's Glove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Bridgewater State Hospital
Posts: 1,126
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $108750


OJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
OJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonTim View Post
What's to argue about?

Exactly.
  OJ's Glove is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 02:39 PM   #347
Big/Sky/Fly
Fort Knoxborough
 
Big/Sky/Fly's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moonover, Montana
Posts: 29,591
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $244103
My Mood


Big/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant future
Big/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by OJ's Glove View Post
Exactly.
Exactly what?
__________________
Steelers: 6 SBs w/3 HCs, 2 QBs, over 40 years

Patriots: 6 SBs w/1 HC, 1 QB, over 18 years


If You Donít Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed
- Mark Twain

You have to have the personality to match up with the Patriots
- Emmit(t) Smith

Wise man never play leapfrog with unicorn
- Confucius
  Big/Sky/Fly is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 02:58 PM   #348
BostonTim
IIWII
 
BostonTim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 29,789
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $1222873


BostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud of
BostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud ofBostonTim has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big/Sky/Fly View Post
Exactly what?
Yep. Exactly.

Cheers
__________________
  BostonTim is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 06:04 PM   #349
subroc
Interested Observer
 
subroc's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,213
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $101250


subroc can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficsubroc can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
subroc can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
I believe Darwin got it right. He nailed it.

It is just as likely there is something we would characterize as God as not. I guess I believe in the possibility.

I don't believe the church, any church, is all good, or all bad. I would never join a church. I find no fault in those that do.

Live and let live.
__________________
Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are!"
Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."
President Donald John Trump: "You don't hand matches to an arsonist and you don't give power to an angry left wing mob."

  subroc is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 06:09 PM   #350
O_P_T
Why Be Normal
 
O_P_T's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Windsor, CT
Posts: 20,667
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $809125
My Mood


O_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousy
O_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousyO_P_T makes Greek statues weep in jealousy
OK, let's summarize what are the known facts and what are the possible theories/causes.

1) There is a large and diverse number of species on Earth.
2a) Some of those species are apparently closely related, based on physiology.
2b) DNA has been shown to control the physiology of life forms and this provides a second way to show how closely related any two given species may be.
3) There are some aspects of physiology that are common across multiple, very diverse species. For example, the structure of bones in vertebrate arms/legs. The upper portion is a single bone and the lower portion is two bones.

So we have all these different life forms, they have these characteristics, the question becomes how.

There are only three logical possibilities:

1) The origin of life occurred each time, for each individual life form. That is they all came from non "alive" precursors.
2) Some outside force (God, Aliens, etc.) modified a life form to produce any given life form and/or created them from non-living material.
3) Some sort of naturally occurring process allowed one life form, once they had come into existence, to transition into another.

Option 1 would be, at least to me, a non-starter. It is difficult enough to envision how a single cell organism could arise from non-living material. creating a multi-cellular creature is absurd. It also can't explain why there are the common physiologies. In fact, if this option is true, one would expect fewer common elements and fewer closely related species.

Option 2 isn't really a theory, since it is not inherently testable and does not make any predictions. It provides no explanation for the common elements nor the closely related species. Except if the one responsible was lazy.

Option 3 would seem to be a viable option. It provides an explanation for the common elements and the closely related species. If new species develop from older ones, then one would expect that there would be common features.

All three options have issues, the question is which one has the fewest and explains the most.

I put the part in bold in option 3 for a point. The question of the origin of life and the diversity of life are separate questions.

The latter is a "Boundary Condition" question, not a "Continuum Condition" question.

A theory that explains the diversity of life might possibly have something to say about the origin of life, but that is not necessarily the case.

It is common place in the study of physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, etc. that one must address something that occurs at a boundary differently from something that occurs "in the middle".

The same applies to the origin of life question.

The primary assumption of the theory of evolution is that there is something alive to evolve.

So if we ever definitively determine how life originated and there is a discrepancy with the theory of evolution, that is moot.
__________________
I AM PATRIOTS

"Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, "Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Patriots again and that son-of-a-f*cking-bitch Belichick".
Paraphrasing George S. Patton
  O_P_T is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 08:11 PM   #351
Giant Octopodes
Registered User
 
Giant Octopodes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 931
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $27988


Giant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
Giant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
I believe the following:

1) The mechanisms of natural selection and speciation are well documented and readily verified
2) "Micro" Evolution which relies upon those theories should be relatively uncontroversial and is backed by significant data
3) Evolution driven by random chance as the primary cause of the diversity of life on this planet is exceedingly unlikely, and I choose that word very deliberately, as the math doesn't support it. It comes up 7s far too often to be realistic. It is estimated that between 7 and 10 million species currently exist, and that between 99 and 99.9% of all species that once existed are extinct, which means we're looking at between 700 million and 10 billion DIFFERENT SPECIES existing on a planet which only started seeing multicellular lifeforms appear between 500 million and 1 billion years ago. Which is to say on average we need to have a new species appear EVERY YEAR for the math to work. In reality it's Much more than that, and the math is Much worse for random chance, based on the way the fossil records work and figurative explosions in biological diversity which appear throughout the Earth's history.
4) Random chance as the cause of the origin of life on this planet is even more unlikely, to the point where it should have never occurred on any planet in the observable universe at any point from the big bang to the expected heat death of the universe. Given that instead life began on the Earth very shortly after it was formed (from an astrological timeline perspective), the likelihood of this occurring is near enough to zero to be equivalent to it being impossible.

Given these things, we are left with 3 possibilities:
1) Our understanding of the mechanisms of life are deeply flawed or incomplete, and our understanding of how evolution works is deeply flawed or incomplete as well
2) The way life evolved on this planet was indeed due to random chance, and it is one impossible event after another, such that we should not realistically expect to ever find life on another planet in the observable universe
3) Random chance was not involved, or not the primary driving factor, and instead the formation and development of life on this planet was influenced by someone or something to stack the deck.

As such, if you believe in random chance based evolutionary theory as the origin of life on this planet, you either don't believe intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, or you don't understand the math involved. Personally I think it far more likely that the deck was stacked, by someone or something, and that even if evolution was the mechanism by which the diversity of life on this planet was established, it was at least partially guided or aided in its functioning to get the results we have.

The way I would put it is this- if an alien found a bicycle lying around, could they convince themselves it was not intelligent design? That it was instead random chance that the pieces fit together as they did, that they happened to form naturally and somehow coalesced on their own into a fully functioning device? Yes, but it does not logically flow for that to occur. For a device of such complexity to exist makes it infinitely more likely that it was built to be that way, that it was purposefully created.

DNA, RNA, and even the most basic of single celled organisms are far more complex than a bicycle. It is theoretically possible they were formed by chance, but that is neither the simplest explanation nor the only one. To say that it is more likely intelligence was used in their creation is not intellectual laziness, instead it is intellectual laziness to discount that possibility and not seek to identify, if it was, what that thing might have been and if evidence of it can be found elsewhere. To say 'eh there's at least a chance it was random' and leave it at that? Not good enough for me.
__________________
"We're better because we've worked harder and we've improved and we've gotten better. Thereís no shortcut to it. You just canít draw a couple of carrots on a page and that all of a sudden takes care of it" - Bill Belichick
  Giant Octopodes is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 12:21 AM   #352
Big/Sky/Fly
Fort Knoxborough
 
Big/Sky/Fly's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moonover, Montana
Posts: 29,591
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $244103
My Mood


Big/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant future
Big/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant futureBig/Sky/Fly has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by subroc View Post
I believe Darwin got it right. He nailed it.

It is just as likely there is something we would characterize as God as not. I guess I believe in the possibility.

I don't believe the church, any church, is all good, or all bad. I would never join a church. I find no fault in those that do.

Live and let live.
All 501c3 non-profit orgs (organized religion) churches are bankrolled by people who are nefarious and have nefarious intentions. They're the very same people who are basically "The Wizards of Oz"...the people behind it all. Georgia Guidestones. UN. Etc...

...BUT, I believe in God.

...and so do they...

...BUT, their God and my God oppose each other.
__________________
Steelers: 6 SBs w/3 HCs, 2 QBs, over 40 years

Patriots: 6 SBs w/1 HC, 1 QB, over 18 years


If You Donít Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed
- Mark Twain

You have to have the personality to match up with the Patriots
- Emmit(t) Smith

Wise man never play leapfrog with unicorn
- Confucius
  Big/Sky/Fly is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 04:41 AM   #353
OJ's Glove
Registered User
 
OJ's Glove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Bridgewater State Hospital
Posts: 1,126
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $108750


OJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
OJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes View Post
3) Evolution driven by random chance as the primary cause of the diversity of life on this planet is exceedingly unlikely, and I choose that word very deliberately, as the math doesn't support it.
Well, since nobody ever claimed evolution is "random chance", I'm not sure who or what you're arguing with.

Evolution by Natural Selection isn't "random chance" at all. It's precisely the opposite of "random." Mutations and genetic variation are only "random" in the sense that they occur independently of the needs of the organism to be successful in its environment. The process of sieving where the best-adapted of the variations leave the most descendants and their traits dominate the population isn't a chance process. It's the opposite. It's apparently a blind, unplanned process. But that doesn't make it "random".

One place of many where the creationists go wrong is the assumption that if something non-random exists in the universe, or some order emerges from disorder, that some "mind" planned it that way. This is fundamentally wrong-headed. Atoms and molecules (for example) don't assemble randomly, like a bunch of velcro-covered tennis balls bouncing around inside a glass case. They naturally assemble in specific ways based on their fundamental properties, and won't assemble in other ways even if you wanted them to.

If your next question is "well, why is the universe like that?", that's a higher-level question that has nothing to do with evolution. But positing a higher-level intelligence to answer the question is a non-starter. It simply removes one level from coming to grips with the problem, and doesn't "explain" anything. It's just a placeholder for our ignorance.

Evolution explains where things like complex organs (like brains) eventually come from - as an emergent, bottom-up process from simpler beginnings. Nothing in biology makes sense without it, based on its predictions and how many otherwise puzzling things it elegantly explains.

But a Superior/Supreme Intelligence of some kind isn't just intelligent. It would be the most complex and intelligent thing ever to exist, and simply positing it as an assumed brute fact with no explanation of where it came from at the beginning to explain everything else? Everything else as being a consequence of something that mind "wants" or "made" somehow? That's a no-no.
  OJ's Glove is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 08:58 AM   #354
Giant Octopodes
Registered User
 
Giant Octopodes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 931
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $27988


Giant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
Giant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
Quote:
Originally Posted by OJ's Glove View Post
Well, since nobody ever claimed evolution is "random chance", I'm not sure who or what you're arguing with.

Evolution by Natural Selection isn't "random chance" at all. It's precisely the opposite of "random." 1. Mutations and genetic variation are only "random" in the sense that they occur independently of the needs of the organism to be successful in its environment. The process of sieving where the best-adapted of the variations leave the most descendants and their traits dominate the population isn't a chance process. It's the opposite. It's apparently a blind, unplanned process. But that doesn't make it "random".

2. One place of many where the creationists go wrong is the assumption that if something non-random exists in the universe, or some order emerges from disorder, that some "mind" planned it that way. This is fundamentally wrong-headed. Atoms and molecules (for example) don't assemble randomly, like a bunch of velcro-covered tennis balls bouncing around inside a glass case. They naturally assemble in specific ways based on their fundamental properties, and won't assemble in other ways even if you wanted them to.

If your next question is "well, why is the universe like that?", that's a higher-level question that has nothing to do with evolution.3 But positing a higher-level intelligence to answer the question is a non-starter. It simply removes one level from coming to grips with the problem, and doesn't "explain" anything. It's just a placeholder for our ignorance.

4. Evolution explains where things like complex organs (like brains) eventually come from - as an emergent, bottom-up process from simpler beginnings. Nothing in biology makes sense without it, based on its predictions and how many otherwise puzzling things it elegantly explains.

But a Superior/Supreme Intelligence of some kind isn't just intelligent. It would be the most complex and intelligent thing ever to exist, and simply positing it as an assumed brute fact with no explanation of where it came from at the beginning to explain everything else? Everything else as being a consequence of something that mind "wants" or "made" somehow? That's a no-no.
1. Yes, that is the definition of random. I am not saying the Sieving process is random. That is natural selection, which again has plenty of evidence and is fully supported by observable science. But the process of the creation of the genetic mutations which occur which lead to the formation of new species is, according to our current understanding of evolutionary science, random in nature. For example, let's take the "genetic mutation" which allows humans to continue to process milk after the age of 15. It's not that the body says 'huh, it sure would be convenient if people had that trait, so I guess I better mess up the RNA transposition into that genome this time for the gene which causes the lactose enzymes to stop being produced, so it never shuts off, that would be helpful right?' Rather, the RNA transposition messes up RANDOMLY, and the resultant person, having a perceivable genetic advantage, has a greater chance to survive, has more children, who also have a greater chance to survive, and over time basically outbreeds those who lack that perceivable advantage. That's how evolution and natural selection work, you know that, right?

Now, speciation has a very clear definition for when it has occurred. It is when you have resultant organisms incapable of interbreeding with the parent group or divergent path organisms which did not follow down the evolutionary path of the organisms in question. At that point the organisms, now form a new species, as they are no longer fall within "a group of organisms capable of sharing genes and interbreeding" of their parent species, and thus are definitionally not part of the same species. The reason I bring this up is the process of speciation is excruciatingly slow. Let's take two examples: One, dogs. Dogs have been selectively bred and gone down very divergent paths for thousands of years. Irish Wolf Dogs and Chihuahuas bear almost no resemblance to each other. Yet, they are all still the same species, capable of interbreeding. There are birds which have been observed for decades which currently Choose not to interbreed and Treat each other as separate species but as of yet are still currently able to interbreed. Presumptively given another few decades they may diverge enough to actually be incapable of interbreeding and thus be a separate species.

I bring up that definition because just having a mutation isn't enough. No one calls those with sickle cell or blue eyes a separate species. You have to have vast, sweeping genetic changes which make it so it is not possible to produce a viable offspring with a parent species any longer, and despite that we have had between 700 million and 10 billion different species on this planet in less than that many years. You get how the math doesn't work on that, right?

Yet take plants. We create new species all the time. We interbreed hybrids into hybrids of hybrids and have created new species within a couple of generations (of plant life), rather easily, through wholly unnatural and guided processes. When you ignore that different species cannot naturally reproduce with each other (again, that's why they're different species), and create a new life out of them anyway, unsurprisingly it tends to be genetically unique. That's the whole point- without assistance or cheating, the process is painfully slow, and may not occur despite separate evolutionary paths for thousands of years. Guided or directed, it's fast, easy, and efficient, and the math actually works.

2. That's not just creationists. If we find a bicycle, everyone assumes intelligence created it. Or a house. Or a water fountain. When things are obviously built, then yeah, we assume some intelligence was involved in building them. Structures or energy emissions are some of the primary things we look for on other planets as proof intelligent life exists on them. Are you saying you think it fundamentally wrong headed to assume that where obvious order exists, intelligence guided it to exist? That's... pretty silly, and achaeologists, astronomers, and more would strongly disagree with that. I'd go so far as to say that's a pretty wild presumption.

3. Again go back to the bicycle. Imagine for a moment two people found one, and one said "Positing an intelligence as the cause of this is a non-starter". That's really, really silly. You bring up it needing to be SO intelligent and "the most intelligent thing ever", but that's not really the case. We can almost do it. We still can't make it occur randomly, of course, but we can splice and cut and build and design simple life at will. We can cross species and create new species and all of that. So to say that it would have to be some ridiculously superior being is just wrong. It wouldn't need to be that much more intelligent than a modern man, just much older. As far as "well but where would that life have come from" or "but where did the cosmos come from" or stuff like that, we're not dealing with that here, and frankly we lack the evidence to make reasonable assertions. We can only deal with the evidence in front of us, and as far as Our life on This planet, the evidence of guidance in its development is pretty clear.

4. That's the thing- it Doesn't explain that at all, because the simplest thing is still ridiculously complex. The simplest organisms which exist in the world have over 52,500 bases associated with their construction. This is because having DNA which guides a cell through the 4 phases of self replication is the baseline requirement, and that's not a simple thing. Furthermore, even if you're in a "soup" of nucleobases (which in and of itself does not occur naturally from anything we've been able to replicate thus far), the trouble is that you need to separate a successfully created self replicating strand isolated from the environment using a mechanism akin to a lipid bilayer. The chance of a lipid bilayer forming naturally around ANY RNA strands is basically zero due to the very nature and properties of such a protective layer, and then to have it form instead around one which is successfully coded for self replication? That's like saying a million monkeys on a million typewriters randomly produced the works of Shakespeare, and then a wooden shell happened to randomly grow around it, which is why there's a copy of Romeo and Juliet in a box, rather than it having been written by design and placed in a box.

And to be clear, I'm not discounting the possibility of random chance. I'm simply saying that to discount the possibility of intelligent design is asinine, and to my eyes the evidence overwhelmingly falls in the latter direction. The odds of successful random assembly of the genetics involved in the simplest organism we're aware of is 3.12x10^316081. The universe is estimated at 4.34x10^20 Milliseconds old, and the Earth was nothing but a giant ball of nucleotides, it would have a total of 3.52*10^51 nucleotides comprising it, for what it's worth. Just to give you an idea of the scale of the numbers involved and how unlikely that random chance is, and again, that's just the first step.
__________________
"We're better because we've worked harder and we've improved and we've gotten better. Thereís no shortcut to it. You just canít draw a couple of carrots on a page and that all of a sudden takes care of it" - Bill Belichick
  Giant Octopodes is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 11:38 AM   #355
OJ's Glove
Registered User
 
OJ's Glove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Bridgewater State Hospital
Posts: 1,126
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $108750


OJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
OJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficOJ's Glove can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
Quote:
1. Yes, that is the definition of random. I am not saying the Sieving process is random...(clipped).That's how evolution and natural selection work, you know that, right?

Yes, that's what I said.

Quote:
Now, speciation has a very clear definition for when it has occurred....The reason I bring this up is the process of speciation is excruciatingly slow.

It can be. Sometimes it isn't. What's more likely? You're simply incorrect about the history, rate and frequency of speciation from your armchair, or some non-human intelligence is needed to fill in the gap you just created?

Quote:
I bring up that definition because just having a mutation isn't enough. No one calls those with sickle cell or blue eyes a separate species. You have to have vast, sweeping genetic changes which make it so it is not possible to produce a viable offspring with a parent species any longer, and despite that we have had between 700 million and 10 billion different species on this planet in less than that many years. You get how the math doesn't work on that, right?

Says who?

Quote:
2. That's not just creationists. If we find a bicycle, everyone assumes intelligence created it. Or a house. Or a water fountain. When things are obviously built, then yeah, we assume some intelligence was involved in building them. Structures or energy emissions are some of the primary things we look for on other planets as proof intelligent life exists on them. Are you saying you think it fundamentally wrong headed to assume that where obvious order exists, intelligence guided it to exist? That's... pretty silly, and achaeologists, astronomers, and more would strongly disagree with that. I'd go so far as to say that's a pretty wild presumption.

This is the sideways move that creationists always use. But it's completely wrong. Yes, you're a creationist. If you think natural processes can't do the job and need "help" from an intelligence, you're a creationist. Just not of the fundamentalist religious stripe, probably.

The sideways move is the false presupposition that complex things need to be thought of and then made by someone. Otherwise they can't exist. But man-made objects and artefacts are of a completely different character than living things, and there is no mechanism by which a bicycle can emerge from simpler forms. We know the history of bicycles, and who made them, and why. Living things aren't like that at all.

And the creationists are hoist on their own petard anyway, because they think everything is intelligently designed by God, whether it's simple like a rock or a stream of water, or something complex like a frog. So complexity shouldn't imply intelligent design - they just unfalsifiably conclude that everything in the universe was purposely and intelligently made, complex OR simple. Just because.

Quote:
3. ...So to say that it would have to be some ridiculously superior being is just wrong. It wouldn't need to be that much more intelligent than a modern man, just much older. As far as "well but where would that life have come from" or "but where did the cosmos come from" or stuff like that, we're not dealing with that here, and frankly we lack the evidence to make reasonable assertions. We can only deal with the evidence in front of us, and as far as Our life on This planet, the evidence of guidance in its development is pretty clear.

Timeout, chief. This is, frankly, bullshit. It ain't "clear" just because you claim it is.

You don't get to hand-wave away the fundamental problem with what you're saying. The whole point of a valuable scientific theory like evolution is it explains complexity. Actually explains it. A highly complex intelligence is a modern END PRODUCT of evolution (at least on Earth), not something you get to posit at the beginning as a brute fact who twiddles biological knobs to make it all work.


Because , AGAIN, I'll repeat myself: You simply removed by one step coming to grips with the fundamental problem. You don't get to put a post-it note over an area we're not 100% sure about yet, and say "Magic man done it." Whether "Magic Man" is a God or an alien intelligence we don't know about yet, you STILL need an explanation of where that intelligence came from, and why. Did those intelligences evolve too? Or do we need "magic men" doing the evolutionary dirty work all the way up the chain?

Quote:
4. That's the thing- it Doesn't explain that at all, because the simplest thing is still ridiculously complex.

So what? Our current genetic code would have to already be the end product of millions of years of pre-biological molecular and chemical evolution anyway. It wouldn't have simply popped into existence fully formed and functional on the early Earth ex nihilo. That's another creationist canard. No scientist would ever claim that it did. Your numbers and probabilities are irrelevant. They don't matter.
  OJ's Glove is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 08:33 PM   #356
Giant Octopodes
Registered User
 
Giant Octopodes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 931
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $27988


Giant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
Giant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficGiant Octopodes can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
Quote:
Originally Posted by OJ's Glove View Post
Yes, that's what I said.




1. It can be. Sometimes it isn't. What's more likely? You're simply incorrect about the history, rate and frequency of speciation from your armchair, or some non-human intelligence is needed to fill in the gap you just created?




2. Says who?




3. This is the sideways move that creationists always use. But it's completely wrong. Yes, you're a creationist. If you think natural processes can't do the job and need "help" from an intelligence, you're a creationist. Just not of the fundamentalist religious stripe, probably.

4. The sideways move is the false presupposition that complex things need to be thought of and then made by someone. Otherwise they can't exist. But man-made objects and artefacts are of a completely different character than living things, 5. and there is no mechanism by which a bicycle can emerge from simpler forms. We know the history of bicycles, and who made them, and why. Living things aren't like that at all.

6. And the creationists are hoist on their own petard anyway, because they think everything is intelligently designed by God, whether it's simple like a rock or a stream of water, or something complex like a frog. So complexity shouldn't imply intelligent design - they just unfalsifiably conclude that everything in the universe was purposely and intelligently made, complex OR simple. Just because.




7. Timeout, chief. This is, frankly, bullshit. It ain't "clear" just because you claim it is.

You don't get to hand-wave away the fundamental problem with what you're saying. The whole point of a valuable scientific theory like evolution is it explains complexity. Actually explains it. A highly complex intelligence is a modern END PRODUCT of evolution (at least on Earth), not something you get to posit at the beginning as a brute fact who twiddles biological knobs to make it all work.


8. Because , AGAIN, I'll repeat myself: You simply removed by one step coming to grips with the fundamental problem. You don't get to put a post-it note over an area we're not 100% sure about yet, and say "Magic man done it." Whether "Magic Man" is a God or an alien intelligence we don't know about yet, you STILL need an explanation of where that intelligence came from, and why. Did those intelligences evolve too? Or do we need "magic men" doing the evolutionary dirty work all the way up the chain?




9. So what? Our current genetic code would have to already be the end product of millions of years of pre-biological molecular and chemical evolution anyway. It wouldn't have simply popped into existence fully formed and functional on the early Earth ex nihilo. That's another creationist canard. No scientist would ever claim that it did. Your numbers and probabilities are irrelevant. They don't matter.
1. Got any evidence of that, or are you using your feelings as your facts? Provide an example of when it's not, in observed or recorded history. The whole point of probability is to explore what is and isn't likely, and this, it ain't likely.

2. Says math, and all known science.

3. Slap whatever label on me you want. I posit 3 possible scenarios - 1) Intelligent design, 2) Random Chance, and 3) Holes in our knowledge or undestanding, and simply come to the conclusion that excluding 3, which is of course always pretty much a given anyway, 1 is currently more likely than 2 based on available evidence. Not my fault if you dogmatically reject realistic possibilities.

4. Never said that, you continue to foist your own beliefs and prejudices upon others and then attack that strawman. I simply said that given complex structures, there is an implication of potential intelligent design.

5. Neither can single celled organisms.

6. Nice rant, got a point to it, or is there an argument against anything anyone has claimed in there?

7. It's clear to my eyes. Do the same research I've done, and study the same math I've studied, and maybe it'll be clear to yours as well.

8. Are you serious? You're arguing because not all elements of a theory are known it can't be true? There are holes in ALL current scientific theory. Gaps in our knowledge which we actively seek to fill. Not my fault if you have zero interest in even pursuing the filling of those gaps or entertaining the theory in the first case, because your religion won't allow you to consider the possibility.

9. You clearly missed where I said "the simplest organism we know of". Not ours, a single celled organism which has no meaningful functions other than self replication, and is missing several organelles. Even assuming it's twice as complex as the prototypical organism originally formed (can't be much more than that while still being capable of self replication), the math ends up the same.

This is to say nothing of the process of encapsulation of course. A lipid bi-layer would not, under known natural conditions, encapsulate much of anything. By its very nature, it would form in sheets, either on top or on bottom of a body of water or aqueous solution. However if you take such a film on top of an aqueous solution and drip something through it, the motion of the particulate will push it underwater and cause it to encapsulate the material passing through. Easily accomplished in a lab, for example, or by design, but the idea that a material containing a self replicating RNA strand would naturally fall through a film of lipid bilayer and this self encapsulate in an uncontrolled setting? Please.
__________________
"We're better because we've worked harder and we've improved and we've gotten better. Thereís no shortcut to it. You just canít draw a couple of carrots on a page and that all of a sudden takes care of it" - Bill Belichick
  Giant Octopodes is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.